Template:Did you know nominations/Megacephalosaurus

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Megacephalosaurus

(

)

Reconstructed skull of Megacephalosaurus

... that Megacephalosaurus (skull pictured) was one of the last known pliosaurs and coexisted with some of the earliest mosasaurs? Source #1:[1] "Megacephalosaurus eulerti is a large macropredatory plesiosaur representing one of the last members of the diverse pliosaurid clade Brachaucheninae." Source #2: [2] "Other previously reported taxa include... Megacephalosaurus eulerti... and plioplatecarpine mosasaurs." (In Discussion)
- ALT1: ... that fossils of the Late Cretaceous pliosaur Megacephalosaurus (skull pictured) were originally thought to have been giant fossils of the closely related Brachauchenius? Source: [3] (The entire paper concerns about this)

Improved to Good Article status by Macrophyseter (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC).

Query: It is a DYK requirement (rule D1) to have an inline citation for the sentence(s) containing the hook fact(s) in the article. This is a little more strict than the minimum GA requirement of one citation per paragraph. The concern is that because the hook fact is surprising or unusual, that it is more likely to be challenged. Having an inline citation to a reliable source is a good precaution against arguments when it appears on the Main Page. So, for ALT0, you need an inline citation at the end of the sentence Megacephalosaurus was among the very last of the pliosaurs. For Megacephalosaurus coexisting with mosasaurs, there's a cited sentence that their remains were found in the same fossil deposits, which I think is sufficient. For ALT1, you need an inline citation at the end of the sentence which concludes Sternberg identified FHSM VP-321 as the Late Cretaceous pliosaur Brachauchenius lucasi.
@Macrophyseter: While I've got your attention, the sentence Of the marine reptiles, plesiosaurs including the polycotylid Trinacromerum, pliosaurs such as Brachauchenius and Megacephalosaurus itself, and indeterminate elasmosaurs; sea turtles, the crocodylomorph Terminonaris, the marine squamate Coniasaurus, and plioplatecarpine mosasaurs have been found within the Turonian Fairport Chalk and/or Greenhorn Shale. is a bit long and complex. If I'm reading it correctly, the part that I underlined are all plesiosaurs, and that underlined passage is specifying them as one type of marine reptile, then follows with other types of marine reptiles. I would suggest removing the semicolon and enclosing the underlined passage with spaced en dashes (&dash; see MOS:DASH). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed all three points. However, the citation for ALT1 is already given an inline at the sentence behind it; wouldn't it be overcitation to have multiple consecutive citations of one source in one paragraph? Macrophyseter | talk 18:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  - I don't disagree with you on that, but I'd suggest keeping that citation in the article at least until the DYK has run since it will get extra attention at that time. The rule is stated at WP:DYKDN.
  - Approve ALT0, ALT1. Article nominated within 7 days of GA promotion, long enough, neutral and well cited, with no copyvio or close paraphrasing detected. QPQ waived for nominator's second DYK nom. Hooks are about 110 and 150 characters, formatted, interesting, neutral, and cited in article. Image is in article, tagged with a CC licence, and displays well. All Good. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)